By Pepper Parr
March 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Change is probably the hardest thing people find they have to do.
We like what we have and fail to realize that what we have is because someone made a change a long time ago. Normally intelligent people at times use arguments that are – well let’s see they are less than well founded – to make a point to prevent a change.
One of the more recent struggles city council faced Monday evening was the approving of the M project on New Street at Cumberland where plans for a six storey structure were approved on a 6-1 vote with Councillor Meed Ward voting against the project.
Those residents who opposed the project – and there were a lot of them; 250+ – do have the right to appeal the city’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board which is where Ward 2 council member Marianne Meed Ward would like to see this go.
She urged her council colleagues to require the developer to come back with a structure that was four storeys in height which would have conformed to the rules as she understood them.
The underlying issue was intensification – we are going to grow, people are going to come to Burlington and there has to be a place for them to live.
The Maranatha project is not an inexpensive place to live. While it does have an innovative “life lease” feature, its strong point is that it is a place for people who want to live in a particular community with a clear set of values now have a place to go. In this instance it happens to be a Christian community that has provided housing for decades.
The developer first came to the city with an 8 storey application and later reduced that to seven storeys. The massing was just too much for the residents.
Meed Ward argued for a four storey project – which would not have had to come to council. The developers wanted eight storeys originally but dropped it to seven and then to six and came back with a project that has a lot less massing that the original design.
Councillor Dennison made the point that if the project was a four storey building the foot print would be much larger with much less green space and fewer trees. The choices were – high and thin or low and fat. Council went for the height.
From time to time much of what council does is on the mundane side but on occasion the public gets to see how they think and the values they work from.
There were a number of delegations; the one from the community brought nothing new to the argument other than a statement that Roseland Height Community Organization founder Brian Heagle prepared for the spokesperson to read. One wonders why Heagle didn’t appear on his own behalf – he is not known for being shy.
Traffic congestion was brought up as a concern: Mayor Goldring told the delegation that staff reports indicate the project will add 30 cars to the morning traffic – less than a 3% increase and 50 cars to the evening traffic – less than 5% more.
At a previous meeting objectors made mention of a 40 foot sink hole – that proved to be a two foot wide hole that was the result of utility lines beneath a road.
What was bothersome was the twisting of information – the spin put on facts and the way information was not fully researched. Anup Ogale, spokesperson for the Roseland Heights Community Organization (RHCO) spoke of “opening the floodgates” for similar incompatible properties along New Street when a drive along that road reveals that there aren’t any properties left be assembled – no flood gates to be opened.
The six storey submission from the developer was the result of intense discussion with city hall planners.
That being said Ogale did make some solid points. The issue was massing – there was from the RHCO point of view, too much building for that part of town. That Burlington has to build was not their issue: where, how high and in what way: “there’s the rub” said Ogale. He added that “you’re the gate keepers, to protect and enhance what our community wants and or needs …Tough decisions.”
“The developers” explained Ogale, “first proposed eight storeys. That wouldn’t pass. So the building was modified to 7 storey’s, now six. Start at 8 when a maximum of four is permitted. Reach a compromise at 6. With respect, this isn’t a poker game. It’s not about who will blink first; 6 storeys is not a winning hand in any event.”
Burlington has an Official Plan said Ogale, “It is not called an Official suggestion.” He added that it is vital to respect and uphold the Official Plan or people end up saying: “Why bother to fight this if Council won’t listen.”
His comments reflect a misunderstanding as to just what an Official Plan is and what it is expected to do. The document is one the city has to revise every five years – Burlington is currently undergoing such a review now – they take more than a year to complete.
The Official Plan sets out a big picture vision of what the city wants to do. The Burlington Official Plan has to comply with both the Regional Official Plan and the various Provincial Policy Statement.
An Official Plan is intended to be a dynamic document and it is subject to amendment. Developers will come along with an idea and quietly go about assembling properties and then taking an idea to the planning department.
The planning department just doesn’t put a rubber stamp on every idea that comes to them. The Maranatha project is an example of the city working with a developer to come back with a plan that has less massing and less density
There was a letter from the Sustainability Advisory Committee that had a lot of very useful information which unfortunately didn’t get to the planner for the developer in time for them to provide a response. Council members didn’t get the document until earlier in the day. The Sustainability Advisory Committee, one of the Mayor’s favourites, has been known for the quality of their work in the past.
The Maranatha developers have been in the community for decades – they have run the “homes” project and determined the market for additional housing called for a bigger building.
However, Ed Fothergill planner for the developer of the project didn’t see much merit in the comments from the Sustainability Advisory Committee. In his letter Fothergill said “he was surprised that these comments would come forward at this late date on an application which was deemed complete on December 20, 2012. Since September of 2012, there have been opportunities for input to the process either to the City or to myself or my client directly through the circulation of the application that took place in the beginning of 2013, at the public meeting that was held in June 2013, and any one of the three Open Houses that were organized by my client. During this time, we have not been contacted by the Sustainable Development Committee and only learned of their most recent submission through the offices of the Planning Department on Friday.”
Councillor Paul Sharman is the liaison person with the Sustainability Committee and he certainly knew the project was working its way through the system and that there was significant opposition to what was planned. Perhaps the Councillor missed a couple of the Sustainability meetings.
Fothergill said: “We believe this lack of participation in the planning approval process is a serious omission and not representative of the normal fair and open planning process that is enjoyed by those who routinely do business with the City of Burlington.
“In addition,” said Fothergill, “my client has gone above and beyond statutory requirements and have made themselves and members of their consulting team available to any group or individual to speak to any matter related to this project since our initial Open House of September 2012. It is disappointing to have a group such as this who have been given a very important mandate by the City to choose not to be a part of a very extensive and open process, but rather without notice to other parties, to come forward now, after the fact, when a Committee recommendation has already been made.”
“It is somewhat disrespectful of the planning process” added Fothergill who went on to say: ”We believe this process renders these comments inadmissible to any Ontario Municipal Board proceeding should the project have the misfortune of pursuing that route, and is of questionable value now to Council following a thorough review of the matter at Committee.”
The process was not the only thing that bothered Fothergill. “We have great difficulty with many of the comments made in the submission” and added that “to be effective, it is very important that their work be focussed on the mandate provided. Once comments and positions begin to extend beyond one’s specific mandate, there are dangers in treading into areas that are best covered by others.”
It is said Fothergill “beyond the mandate of the Sustainable Development Committee, as we understand it, to speak to matters related to planning, servicing, or other technical issues where there is no specific expertise attributed to the Committee and where these matters are more appropriately dealt with by the preparation of technical support documents and the review of that material by other City departments, including the Planning Department, Engineering Department, and Traffic Department. This concern becomes evident in cases such as this where the position put forward to this Council by an advisory committee which has chosen not to be involved at all through the process, brings forward conclusions that are directly contrary to professional recommendations made by qualified staff in a variety of City departments.”
He added: “We believe that many of the comments in the letter illustrate the danger of exceeding the mandate of the Committee and of providing comments which may not have clear direction to Council. These include the following:
“The Committee provides an opinion that the proposal is out of character with the neighbourhood without undertaking the kind of comprehensive analysis that was already completed by the Planning Department who presented the Development and Infrastructure Committee with a contrary position based on their careful and thorough assessment of the proposal within the context of established Official Plan policies.
“The Sustainable Development Committee notes that the area is not a designated intensification corridor and notes that the decision on approval of the application should be made with the guidance of a completed Neighbourhood Study. These two matters are not criteria to be considered in assessing the application, are not required by the Official Plan, and were not assessed by either myself as a planner for the proponent, or by planning staff. We believe that it is inappropriate for the Sustainable Development Committee to establish criteria on their own for the assessment of the application, particularly when the criteria have no policy basis, are unknown to the proponent and the planning staff, appear after the fact, and may not be consistent from project to project.”
“It is noted in the report” said Fothergill “that “as a City we have the habit of increasing building heights without fully understanding the impact on the neighbourhood”. This is not the experience we have found in our dealings with the City of Burlington. This statement we believe diminishes the amount and significance of work that was undertaken by staff with respect to their assessment of our application as well as numerous applications reviewed by staff and approved by Council. This statement may simply reflect the fact that the Committee may be unaware that this, and every development proposal that comes forward to a public meeting, undergoes a rigorous and thorough review, not only by the Planning Department, but other departments at the City. To suggest that decisions are being made … without fully understanding the implications, we believe, is not a true reflection of the quality of work undertaken by staff and the diligent way by which Council regularly makes decisions on development applications.
Fothergill suggests there could perhaps be “some form of filter to review comments” from Advisory Committees to ensure they are within their mandate and not contradictory to the position of staff or departments who have the mandate and expertise to deal with technical issues.”
Councillor Sharman, who could have been a filter for the Sustainable committee, pitched a handful of soft questions to Ed Fothergill, planner for the developer, and sounded a little like a defence attorney in a criminal trial leading his witness. When Sharman asked Fothergill if he was qualified and could he expand on his experience – Fothergill was a little flabbergasted – he has been in the planning business for so long that he may have forgotten when he started. It all came across as a bit of a set up.
Mayor Goldring made a telling point when he said he was absolutely certain that at least some of the 250 people who signed a petition against the project would, in the fullness of time, choose to live in the project.
While the six storey building is not what the community wanted – of even more concern is what happens to the Brock lands at the rear of the project.
There was the argument that this type of project pushes the price of housing up – which no one in Burlington is going to lose much sleep over. Meed Ward mentioned a developer who had approached her about a possible 14 story project and wanted her input and comment.
For Meed Ward to be able to say publicly that a developer had met with her to talk about a project that was going to look for more height puts a hobble on the pretty consistent comment that she is doing the city great harm and that no one wants to build in Burlington because of what she does to developers.
And she is tough on developers. She asks some pretty blunt questions and ensured that Fothergill earned his fees earlier in the week when he began to explain why his client needed the height they were seeking. Could this project not have been a four storey building se asked and when Fothergill gave her an answer she immediately shot back with “Why not?” It has been sometime since a developer in Burlington has faced that kind of questioning.
Councillor Dennison pointed to the Bonnie Place project that has 11 and 16 storey structures and is literally blocks away from the Maranatha project.
Change does not come easily to established communities and planning is a complex business. Has the community learned anything from this project? Has city council?
Councilor Sharman has become the deleloper’s best friend – I often wonder if he has confused the city being open for business and not for sale. The ADI developemnt (in the Orchard along Dundas) in his ward had shown the same level of debate and one wonders – as relelection approaches – does he represent his ward or the developers who want to do business in the city.
A few comments, however for full disclosure, I am currently running for City Council in Ward 4.
In terms of Mr. Heagle writing the presentation but not delivering it, I have come to see a consistent theme with Mr. Heagle. It would appear to be a pattern for him to “stir the pot” however stay away from “getting his hands dirty”. Whether its backhanded shots at candidates (not only this one) in his “Ward 4” blog or pretending to take a position against city Council but then back peddling as he did in his recent website blog, suggesting that people need to create more community organizations so that they can be heard. I would propose that this is the role of the local Councilor. Regarding the Roseland Heights Community Organization which was reportedly established over a year ago, it wasn’t until the weekend before the council vote that it was handing out flyers. Perhaps Mr Heagle, as the co-founder, wanted to create the appearance of standing up for his neighbourhood but didn’t want to be perceived as being too hard on the current council, he might need their’s and Mr. Dennison’s support if/when he decides if he will run. Likely, he is still sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if he can win before entering the race. Wouldn’t want to lose again.
In terms of Mr. Dennison’s position on the development, I would start out by wondering outloud, why Mr. Dennison doesn’t declare a “Conflict” with respect to any requests for variances or changes to planning. Mr. Dennison is currently appealing the ruling of the City (just for clarity, the City that HE represents)to the OMB. Therefore, wouldn’t he have a direct interest in the results of other requests for variances or making comments about what the OMB might do. In essence, by supporting this decision, Mr. Dennison is supporting the idea that the City of Burlington’s Official Plan should not be taken seriously. Wasn’t Mr Dennison a part of the development of the plan, shouldn’t we as citizens expect our city council to defend the document they approved. Mr. Dennison, accepts the presentation by the applicant that we need more Christian places for seniors, may be the case but let’s be clear, it is in the interest of the applicant that this be true. Perhaps he should make it clear that his statement is not based on his own analysis. Lastly, Mr Dennison, makes a connection between this development and the Bonnie Place development which is only blocks away. Let’s be clear that these are not the same thing; Bonnie Place is built right beside existing high rises and multi-unit dwellings and directly behind a large commercial plaza (Roseland Plaza). All of which have been there for decades. I don’t think that is even close to Maranatha project area that borders on single family homes and a significant green space. I am not sure that Mr Dennison is in a position to effectively represent Ward 4 in this situation.
Lastly, in terms of the project itself, although I do not have all of the details that Council may be privy to, my current suggestion is that the plan that includes a 4 story unit would be more appropriate for this location. The 4 story version would represent a significant increase in density for these lands from the current 4-5 houses ( a couple which are commercial)to a 4 story multiple unit facility which is consistent with the plan for more “intensification”. The “business case” for this development is NOT the responsibility of the neighbourhood, the City or Council. That is something that sits squarely on the shoulders of the business that is proposing it. We have no idea whether they can modify their project plan to reduce costs, that is not our responsibility. I do commend that developers for engaging the community early in the process however, that does not mean that they are entitled to do whatever they want.
I would also take exception to the fact that this has become about 6 stories versus 8. We need to continue to focus on the fact that this used to be 4-5 houses and is now a large complex. The position that we have “reduced from 8 then 7 then 6” is ridiculous. We have gone from where we are today to 4 stories.
It does appear that there was some break-down in the process with the late submission from the Sustainability Committee. I am not sure how the Development and Infrastructure Committee can proceed with a recommendation decision until they have all the information. IF this was important then the issue should have been pushed back. IF the information contained in the Sustainability Committee report was not something that Council should consider then why did we bother making them do it. In terms of which portions of the report go beyond the scope of the Committee, it would be better for Committee or Council to make that decision, not the developer.
In the end, my main concern in this situation is that as a City we were not prepared to support the official plan and signaled that if someone threatens they will go to the OMB then we will cave. Not something that we should allow!
“The Maranatha project is not an inexpensive place to live. While it does have an innovative “life lease” feature, its strong point is that it is a place for people who want to live in a particular community with a clear set of values now have a place to go. In this instance it happens to be a Christian community that has provided housing for decades.” Pepper Parr—March 20, 2014
Mr. Sweeny has delivered a rational examination with a specifically correct imputation of motives. The entire flow from incumbent and would-be Councillors has been ‘innuendo’ because they don’t wish to be honest by participating in reasoned debate. I call it the BOB & WEAVE SHOW. Quoting Mr. Sweeny;
1. “IF this was important then the issue should have been pushed back. IF the information contained in the Sustainability Committee report was not something that Council should consider then why did we bother making them do it? In terms of which portions of the report go beyond the scope of the Committee, it would be better for Committee or Council to make that decision, not the developer.”
2. “In the end, my main concern in this situation is that as a City we were not prepared to support the official plan and signaled that if someone threatens they will go to the OMB then we will cave.” Not something that we should allow!
To which I would question; WHY Council courts ‘citizen interest’ on the one hand, by inviting people to participate in framing long-range plans, IF Council has no intention of abiding by those plans. Councillors approving such project / zoning changes should sign as approving the change when it occurs. Citizens can review a particular Councillor’s voting history through a City Clerk’s summarization of Council voting patterns.
I have already begun to speak to our neighbours about Mr. Sweeny. … Clearly a man of principle.
Sweeny is starting to sound just like Meed Ward and Goldring.
Do nothing, go back to committee, scare business away and incapable of making decisions.
The overly long opinion by Sweeny also suggests that Sweeny has very little experience in dealing with land use planning and development, the approvals process, what a developer can or cannot do, density and intensification, the OP, the OMB, and generally the dynamics involved in new development projects.
Heagle’s presentation at council thru one of his agents, was of the amateur variety. I don’t know of any other lawyer who would continue to embarrass himself with such exposure.
Sweeny also needs a communication adviser if he wants to be effective in gaining some positive political profile; better writing skills required.
Pat,
I’m sorry that you felt my comments were too long. It is a complex situation and I wanted to provide more than just sound bites.
In terms of scaring business away I am not sure how you would come to that conclusion. I was simply delineating the responsibility of the developer and City and Council. Once again, we do want to encourage development within the City and do not want to cause any potential developer undue process which is why I questioned bringing the Sustainability Committee report at this late date. We also have an Official Plan that was put together and is updated through a regular process. Therefore, I am concerned if the City is not standing by the current OP. It was Council that suggested that it was not consistent with the current plan.
I will not want to speak for Ms Meed Ward or Mr Goldring and I do not claim to be an expert on the complex process around development. However, in your short response, it was not clear which specific areas that I commented on you felt were incorrect.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate issues with the community and would be pleased to speak further if you are interested.
john_sweeny@sympatico.ca
That’s exactly my point. Everybody pitching in on this issue does not seem to have a strong enough grasp of how the OP and the development approvals process works. Everybody just seems to blurt out some sort of misinformed interpretation of how things work, and how they ought to be, and opinions are somehow being promoted as being fact.
So, the positions opined by high profile people like yourself, Meed Ward, Goldring, and that lawyer Heagle, can be potentially misleading to the overall dialogue, and potentially dangerous to the development and land use planning business in this city.
The handling of the OP and development is politically sensitive, and the impacts of high profile opinions can be detrimental to a significantly important public process; witness what happened last Monday at council.
The entire matter was poorly managed.
The intensification and re-development issue is only starting, and it can be the best thing ever for this city.
The problem with the current regime and political climate, is nobody gets it.